Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 28 January 2020 Site visit made on 30 January 2020 by David Reed BSc DipTP DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 4 March 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/N2535/W/19/3233024 Land West of A1133, Newton on Trent, Lincolnshire LN1 2JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Barbara Mary Arden, Furrowfresh Ltd against the decision of West Lindsey District Council. • The application Ref 138491, dated 20 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 January 2019. • The development proposed is a mixed use sustainable village extension comprising up to 325 private and affordable dwelling units (Use Class C3) community meeting rooms (Use Class D1), with ancillary pub/café use (Use Class A4) and sales area (Use Class A1), together with landscaping, public and private open space (all matters reserved). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for later determination. The appeal has been considered on this basis, treating the site masterplan with phasing and other supporting material as illustrative only. 3. A further reason for refusal was that insufficient evidence had been provided to establish whether the proposal would sterilise mineral resources within a minerals safeguarding area. However, further evidence was subsequently provided whichRichborough satisfied the Council on this pointEstates and accordingly this reason for refusal was withdrawn well before the hearing. 4. The proposal is essentially unchanged from a previous application which was dismissed following an inquiry in March 2018 (APP/N2535/W/17/3175670). Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • whether the proposal would comply with the spatial strategy of the local plan; • whether the location of the proposal would minimise the need to travel and maximise walking, cycling and public transport; and • whether the proposal would comply with flood protection policies. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/N2535/W/19/3233024 Reasons 6. The proposal is for a mixed use village extension including up to 325 dwellings, village hub providing business/community space, public open space and wildlife areas on an 18 ha site north west of the village of Newton on Trent. The site comprises two fields currently used for free range chicken farming and forms part of the flat landscape to the east of the River Trent. The proposal has been developed following extensive community engagement and is intended to arrest the perceived decline of the village with additional housing, employment and other facilities to meet its needs. Spatial strategy 7. Newton on Trent, which comprises 167 dwellings at present, is classified as a ‘small village’ in the settlement hierarchy defined by the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan adopted in April 2017 (the CLLP). This joint plan covering the City of Lincoln, North Kesteven and West Lindsey was prepared by a committee of the three Councils plus Lincolnshire County Council, and as such establishes the planning strategy for a large part of the County until 2036. Policy LP3 aims to deliver 36,960 dwellings over the plan period, around 64% in the Lincoln area, 12% each at the main towns of Gainsborough and Sleaford and the remainder being provided in the rest of the plan area in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and spatial strategy of the plan. The appellant does not argue that the housing policies are out of date and thus the ‘tilted balance’ should apply, rather that the proposal complies with the CLLP. 8. Policy LP2 defines a total of eight tiers in the settlement hierarchy for the plan area. Following the Lincoln area and the two main towns, these are Market Towns (Caistor and Market Rasen), Large Villages, Medium Villages, Small Villages, Hamlets and the Countryside. The villages are categorised by size, with large villages having over 750 houses, medium villages 250-750 houses and small villages 50-250 houses. Newton on Trent falls within the small village category with the nearest large village offering a good range of services and a railway station being Saxilby, about 5 miles away. 9. In order to meet housing needs the plan makes specific allocations for the top four tiers of the hierarchy (down to large villages) and sets a percentage target increase for the next two tiers (medium and small villages) in Policy LP4. Firm settlement boundaries are not defined by the plan, instead Policies LP2 and LP4 include criteriaRichborough to determine appropriate sites Estates for development in relation to each tier. These sites would be in addition to allocations in the upper tier settlements or, in the case of medium and small villages, the means by which they would grow as no allocations are made. The size guidance for individual housing schemes decreases down the hierarchy, with those in market towns limited to 50 dwellings, 25 dwellings in large villages, 9 dwellings in medium villages and 4 dwellings in small villages. Importantly however, there is also scope for larger schemes in certain circumstances, one of which is when there is ‘clear local community support’ as claimed by the appellant in this case. 10. In the absence of a neighbourhood plan or clear local community support, Policy LP2 normally restricts new housing in a small village such as Newton on Trent to schemes of four dwellings. The proposal is thus about 80 times larger than this policy guideline. In addition, Policy LP4 limits the overall growth in housing in the village to 10% over the plan period as a whole, so, in the case https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/N2535/W/19/3233024 of Newton on Trent, this is a limit of 17 additional dwellings1. Five have been permitted so far, leaving capacity for a further 12 dwellings. The proposal is thus about 19 times larger than the overall policy guideline for the village, or 27 times the remaining capacity. These multiples give a clear indication of the size of the scheme compared to the size which would normally be permitted under the spatial strategy. Indeed, the scheme is about six times larger than would normally be permitted in one of the market towns and would roughly treble the number of dwellings in the village. 11. The appellant does not dispute this but argues there is clear local community support in this case. If such support is demonstrated, neither the scheme limit in Policy LP2 nor the village limit in Policy LP4 apply and there is no upper size limit. This point was confirmed by the Council in response to questions from the appellant’s advocate at the local plan examination2. 12. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the 2018 appeal decision outline the detailed research undertaken to formulate the aims and content of the scheme. This involved extensive consultation between November 2014 and August 2015 including a community visioning day, household survey, meetings with stakeholders and a final design workshop. However, as explained in paragraphs 20-22, whilst this exercise satisfies BREEAM accreditation, there was no further consultation on the specific planning application proposals before submission to demonstrate community support as required by Policies LP2 and LP4. 13. In order to rectify this problem following dismissal of the previous appeal, the appellant undertook a public consultation exercise during May 2018 prior to submitting the latest planning application. This involved sending a letter and leaflet to each household in the village, an exhibition in the church, posters, website and facebook page, all encouraging households and other stakeholders to register support or opposition to the proposal as suggested by paragraph 21 of the 2018 appeal decision. 167 local households were identified to vote via the website, exhibition or local shop, together with 52 other stakeholders such as local businesses and organisations. The Council were consulted in advance about this methodology and had no criticism of it at the hearing, Policy LP2 only requiring ‘a thorough, but proportionate’ exercise. Short of using an independent survey organisation or a ‘Parish Poll’ of individual electors, it is hard to see what else the appellant could have done. 14. Overall, 42% Richboroughof the village households responded, Estates 43 registering support and 27 opposition, a split of 61%-39%. The response of other stakeholders was similar. The response rate was reasonable, and 61% is certainly a respectable level of support, contrasting with the more common experience of residents objecting to housing proposals. However, there is no precise definition of ‘clear local community support’ in either Policy LP2 or any published guidance from the Central Lincolnshire Joint Committee or West Lindsey DC, leaving the term open to interpretation3. I agree with a previous Inspector that a simple majority does not necessarily meet the development plan requirement and it is a matter for the decision maker to judge in each case4. In my view the greater the scale of development proposed in relation to a settlement the greater the level of community support required. 1 10% of 167, although subject to flood risk concerns being overcome, dealt with in the third main issue. 2 Email from John Barrett 9 December 2016 re CLLP examination hearing. 3 Fenland DC have a similar policy and use a simple majority but that cannot be assumed to apply in West Lindsey. 4 APP/N2535/W/18/3207564 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/N2535/W/19/3233024 15. The appellant argues that under Policies LP2 and LP4 the demonstration of clear community support offers an equivalent route to permission for a larger scale scheme as a neighbourhood plan and therefore a simple majority as in a referendum should suffice.